Culture is a surprisingly controversial subject. Part of the reason for this is that it is a persistently mysterious one. We never know, despite the reasonably useful definitions of it that are available, if we really are confronting the elements of true culture, or just those of passing fancy.
It can be a problem if we mistake the latter for the former, a matter I attempted to address in last Wednesday’s post. Miki Saxon, author of Leadership Turn, made a strong objection to my contention that bosses should avoid imagining that they can change a corporate culture, by diktat or otherwise. She provided powerful evidence of successful and effective cultural change leading to various benefits for several companies.
But I have to venture some more observations about this. For one thing, I’m not convinced that much of what we perceive as change – even when it really does represent that – is actually occurring at the cultural level. Often we are really dealing with a new attitude, or a more productive atmosphere. These can have potent effects on an organization. But they don’t really rise – or deepen – to the level of culture unless they become a way of thinking, believing, and working that is transmitted across the corporate equivalent of generations.
The institution with the most distinctly formidable organizational culture I know of, The United States Marine Corps, is an example of this. The surface details of the way it works have changed dramatically – even fundamentally – over its lifetime, including in the past several decades, and change is in the air now. Tactics, techniques, equipment, uniforms – even missions – all have undergone major transformations many times. But the basic culture hasn’t.
Here’s another way to look at it: As you visit various units in the Corps, or if you are familiar with one that undergoes changes in mission, deployment location, or especially in the person of the commander, you may see dramatic differences in attitude and atmosphere, with attendant change in mood and energy. But the foundation culture is always there, driving responses to those surface alterations, giving them meaning, maintaining the stability on which that temporal change can find the traction to test its legs.
When we teach our bosses that they can be agents of change and that our organizations’ cultures stem from their persons, we set the stage for irrelevant levels of self-importance in those bosses, arbitrary and often erratic organizational mood swings, and the detachment of what we are doing from what we are trying to do. We don’t want bosses running around changing culture as though they were omniscient engineers terraforming otherwise lifeless planets. We want them managing the execution of strategy. Let the rest follow from that.
But as long as we’re tossing cautions around, here’s another one: when we are attempting to generate an environment that helps organize us to be effective and productive, who really cares what we call it, or what level of change it actually amounts to? If it works, it is possible that the details are mere pedantry.
So, please see Miki’s comments to last week’s post for some excellent examples of conscious and rewarding change in organizations, and decide for yourself what level of discussion about it is really material to the benefit those outfits enjoyed. Just try to keep the focus on the work and its results, rather than on the process of change itself – and be sure to keep the boss focused on those as well, rather than on his or her imagined exceptionalism as an agent of change.
—
Note: I am very pleased and honored to learn that the Managing Leadership Blog has been included in a listing of the 100 Leading Blogs on Leadership, assembled by Molly DiBianca of The Delaware Employment Law Blog.
—
Today’s tip: Speaking of culture, a key pointer to its nature lies in the terminology we use at work – and the hidden meaning behind it. There is no better way to keep track of this than through John Phillps‘s regular feature entitled Corporate BS; my favorites this week are those for 20 and 21 November – which are yours?
—
We appreciate your visits here very much, and would love to have you as a regular reader. Please take a moment to subscribe, either by email or via an RSS reader, using the options available just below or at the upper right. And welcome aboard!
—
Technorati Tags: culture, Miki Saxon, corporate culture, change, organization, United States Marine Corps, mission, commander, execution, strategy, agent of change, John Phillps, Managing Leadership, Molly DiBianca
Sphere: Related Content
6 Comments
Thanks for the plug. These are two of my favorites as well, mainly because they’re so overused, often by people who think they’re saying something original or important.
Hello John,
This is a great feature, and I never miss it – nor any post on your site. But your definitions of these terms – can we take them as legal opinions of their meaning?
I wonder if the sharp distinction between culture and passing fancy is, as you commented later, “If it works, it is possible that the details are mere pedantry.”
Is it possible that what we call “culture” is change that is effected and effective whereas change that is ineffectual and past, possibly rapidly, is “passing fancy.”
Moreover, is it not important to remember that external cultural changes also strongly affect behaviour within an organisation. Take the current financial climate; is not most of what is happening within organisations significantly driven by the current world economic downturn?
I took a look at the thread. It occurs to me that, and most likely not intended and probably resulting from trying to put into words something that is incredibly complex, the whole discussion of change is A acted on B and B thereby changed. That may be true. B may be now doing what A wanted and what is in harmony with goals and such. But who was the real change agent? Maybe it was A because she finally got it right and it sunk into B’s mind in a way that made it possible; maybe it was B who freed himself up in some way to hear and act. Maybe it was neither and things happened to peak at the right time. My point being that it is a dance between and among (key part) the lead and the leaders / the managed and the manager that can shift back and forth.
And the cultural aspect seems to me to be much more deep and difficult to change than the mood of the day so it would seem that you’d have to look at a cultural change over a longer time frame. Something in a shorter term would seem more likely to be a shift in mood.
Interesting discussion.
Hello Inseiffolliet,
Regarding maintaining the distinction between real cultural-level change and superficial atmospheric alterations, the key is both if it works and, more importantly, why. If it turns out to be a transitory and improperly assessed or understood consequence of a particular person at the top, then it is important to not be fooled by it – otherwise, less so.
I think your point about external factors – including cultural evolution in society – is excellent, and a real key to how to assess and even effect true cultural change.
Thanks for stopping by with this!
Hello Dean,
It is incredibly complex, isn’t it? You also ask a terrific question, challenging what many would instantly assume to be the case when “B” appears to have changed under the influence of “A” – this is a great key to why we need to avoid superficial and quick answers to so complex – and potentially important – issues.
Of course, I also agree with you about the importance of considering time frame – and also transmission of whatever level or mores, traditions, and behaviors we happen to be talking about beyond specific bosses and even generations of workers.
Thanks for some great insight, here!
One Trackback/Pingback
[...] points to reasons why it is important not to mistake mood for morale, or passing atmospherics for real cultural change. Because if we are in need of such change, we are in need as well of a more realistic and serious [...]
Post a Comment